Language:
switch to room list switch to menu My folders
Go to page: First ... 82 83 84 85 [86] 87 88 89 90 ... Last
[#] Tue Sep 27 2011 17:54:47 EDT from IGnatius T Foobar @ Uncensored

[Reply] [ReplyQuoted] [Headers] [Print]

If there are logic expressions that never yield the same result on all databases, then you can use those expressions to detect what database the sql statement is running on!

[#] Tue Sep 27 2011 18:21:55 EDT from LoanShark @ Uncensored

[Reply] [ReplyQuoted] [Headers] [Print]


SQL*Autoconf? *wince*

Gnu autoconf was bad enough. A configuration system that only an ai hacker could love.

[#] Tue Oct 04 2011 21:08:51 EDT from Ford II @ Uncensored

[Reply] [ReplyQuoted] [Headers] [Print]

Gnu autoconf was bad enough. A configuration system that only an ai
hacker could love.

I like the way you say "was". Is it gone now?

[#] Tue Oct 04 2011 21:08:25 EDT from Ford II @ Uncensored

[Reply] [ReplyQuoted] [Headers] [Print]

If there are logic expressions that never yield the same result on all

databases, then you can use those expressions to detect what database

the sql statement is running on!

yes, but if you have to do sql to find out what database you're running on, one questions the sanity of the environment you're working in.

[#] Tue Oct 04 2011 23:53:45 EDT from zooer @ Uncensored

[Reply] [ReplyQuoted] [Headers] [Print]

Depends on what your definition of "was" was.  

 

 

 

 



[#] Wed Oct 05 2011 11:03:08 EDT from LoanShark @ Uncensored

[Reply] [ReplyQuoted] [Headers] [Print]

I like the way you say "was". Is it gone now?

Forgotten, but not gone.

[#] Mon Oct 10 2011 11:21:38 EDT from IGnatius T Foobar @ Uncensored

[Reply] [ReplyQuoted] [Headers] [Print]

Heh. Forgotten but not gone as in, new projects don't write autoconf scripts anymore -- they do build environments using GNU Automake, which writes the autoconf scripts for you.

Yes, it is once again -- "progress"

[#] Mon Oct 10 2011 11:44:20 EDT from LoanShark @ Uncensored

[Reply] [ReplyQuoted] [Headers] [Print]


Well the Qt world has got CMake etc. autoconf has its niceties and it's probably the right thing for some projects that want portability to a wide array of obscure archs. (And it was fun to learn, back in the day.) It also introduces its share of complexity.



But does autoconf really scale to those big projects that become so intertwined with outside dependencies that they're /de facto/ dependent on a specific Linux distribution?

[#] Mon Oct 10 2011 12:05:38 EDT from IGnatius T Foobar @ Uncensored

[Reply] [ReplyQuoted] [Headers] [Print]

That's "GNU/Linux" to you, mister. ;)

I imagine that RMS would have preferred a Jobsian-style "here is the official GNU operating system; our software is built to run on it; other operating systems subtract your freedom and are therefore unsupported" if he could have pulled it off.

Instead we got autoconf, with its configuration language that only an LISP hacker from the MIT AI lab could love. The rest of us curse at our screens while we count parentheses.

I suppose this discussion is reserved for dinosaurs anyway; most new developers probably just use whatever build system their fancy-schmancy IDE generates for them. And for a new project that aims to be part of the mainstream pool of open source software written in C, it's easier to just start with GNU Hello as a template.

[#] Mon Oct 10 2011 20:43:55 EDT from Ford II @ Uncensored

[Reply] [ReplyQuoted] [Headers] [Print]

Heh. Forgotten but not gone as in, new projects don't write autoconf

scripts anymore -- they do build environments using GNU Automake, which

writes the autoconf scripts for you.

Yes, it is once again -- "progress"

In fucking sane.

[#] Mon Oct 10 2011 20:45:13 EDT from Ford II @ Uncensored

[Reply] [ReplyQuoted] [Headers] [Print]

Well the Qt world has got CMake etc. autoconf has its niceties and
it's probably the right thing for some projects that want portability

to a wide array of obscure archs. (And it was fun to learn, back in the


I remember the first time around when you tried to explain it to me, and I didn't get it then, and I don't get it now.
I'm glad it's one of those things that I ignored and it went away so I'll never have to bother with it. Kinda like corba.

[#] Tue Oct 11 2011 07:38:03 EDT from dothebart @ Uncensored

[Reply] [ReplyQuoted] [Headers] [Print]

Mon Oct 10 2011 20:45:13 EDT from Ford II @ Uncensored
Well the Qt world has got CMake etc. autoconf has its niceties and
it's probably the right thing for some projects that want portability

to a wide array of obscure archs. (And it was fun to learn, back in the


I remember the first time around when you tried to explain it to me, and I didn't get it then, and I don't get it now.
I'm glad it's one of those things that I ignored and it went away so I'll never have to bother with it. Kinda like corba.

well, since the whole stuff around kde has got it, it won't go away as easy as corba. (which I have to deal with at work...)

It seems also to produce more easily portable builds, for example libical is bi-headed; its got configure for *nix, but also cmake for *nix and windows.

I must admit after taking the time to get that autofoo stuff figured out, I don't bother to change atm.

At least autofoo just requires a running shell on the build host, while cmake has to be installed, which disqualifies it for citadel.



[#] Tue Oct 11 2011 22:12:08 EDT from IGnatius T Foobar @ Uncensored

[Reply] [ReplyQuoted] [Headers] [Print]

In fucking sane.

Oh you don't know the half of it :)

The configuration language for automake, which writes your autoconf scripts for you, is just as confusing as autoconf itself. Our build was completely broken for weeks when we tried to switch to it.

I often wonder whether some projects would be better served by a simple little shell script instead of this massive configuration system. Or perhaps we need a super-simplified build system framework, designed by people who spend most of their time as system administrators, not AI hackers (or in the case of Stallman, AI hacker wannabes).

For example, why can't a configure script be *written* in shell instead of generated?

Not that it's better anywhere else...

[#] Mon Oct 17 2011 16:25:56 EDT from LoanShark @ Uncensored

[Reply] [ReplyQuoted] [Headers] [Print]

scripts for you, is just as confusing as autoconf itself. Our build
was completely broken for weeks when we tried to switch to it.

Not even aahz's fault... probably mine.

[#] Mon Oct 17 2011 16:31:20 EDT from LoanShark @ Uncensored

[Reply] [ReplyQuoted] [Headers] [Print]


this was years ago, of course; maybe they've got their act together now.

[#] Mon Oct 17 2011 16:30:54 EDT from LoanShark @ Uncensored

[Reply] [ReplyQuoted] [Headers] [Print]


the most horribly broken part, I'd say, was libtool and its attempts at Mac OS X compatibility. Would have been much more expedient to hand-code the makefiles.

[#] Mon Oct 17 2011 16:45:13 EDT from dothebart @ Uncensored

[Reply] [ReplyQuoted] [Headers] [Print]

 

Mon Oct 17 2011 16:25:56 EDT from LoanShark @ Uncensored
scripts for you, is just as confusing as autoconf itself. Our build
was completely broken for weeks when we tried to switch to it.

Not even aahz's fault... probably mine.

nope, mine.



[#] Mon Oct 17 2011 23:58:00 EDT from IGnatius T Foobar @ Uncensored

[Reply] [ReplyQuoted] [Headers] [Print]

this was years ago, of course; maybe they've got their act together
now.

Doubtful. FSF doesn't really write code anymore. Nowadays they spend most of their time trying to be a socially dysfunctional version of the EFF.

That's why I try to put comments in my source that look like this:

# Copyright (c) 20011 by IGnatius T Foobar
# This program is released under the terms of the GNU General Public License v3
# It is intended to run on the Linux operating system, which is open source.


[#] Tue Oct 18 2011 09:46:49 EDT from dothebart @ Uncensored

[Reply] [ReplyQuoted] [Headers] [Print]

Mon Oct 17 2011 23:58:00 EDT from IGnatius T Foobar @ Uncensored
this was years ago, of course; maybe they've got their act together
now. 
# Copyright (c) 20011 by IGnatius T Foobar

so you're ahead of your time just a little bit...



[#] Tue Oct 18 2011 17:55:42 EDT from IGnatius T Foobar @ Uncensored

[Reply] [ReplyQuoted] [Headers] [Print]

In the year 2525, the code began writing itself.

Go to page: First ... 82 83 84 85 [86] 87 88 89 90 ... Last